Pixelmator Updated With 16-Bit Color and Full Mac Pro Support

[jettredmont]

I can't even tell the difference between a lot of 8 bit colors... Why make them 16 bit? (We're talking about going from 2^24 different hues to 2^48 different hues, right? And going from 2^8 different amounts of transparency to 2^16 different amounts of transparency, right?)

When you are doing adjustments you need the extra color space/precision. This is a significant reason why most photographers will shoot in RAW mode rather than using the fast in-camera JPG conversion; once you go to JPG you've lost a great deal of the photographic information so lose the chance to adjust exposure, white balance, and contrast to bring out details of the image. As you make those adjustments, even if you start with an 8-bit image, the 16 bits of precision allow you to make multiple such adjustments in series without unwanted side effects (banding, detail loss, etc).

Imagine a calculator that doesn't keep anything after the decimal point, and using that to do algebra homework. Lack of precision is a significant handicap.

Working in 16 bits (or more) is a requirement for any photo manipulation prior to the output photo stage. PSE and Pixelmator being 8-bit meant that they always had to be the very last step in any photo touch-up workflow, which meant that a lot of the fancy tools they brought to bear were useless.

 

[pgiguere1]

Always good news to see Pixelmator updated. But I do wonder how many Mac Pro users are actually using Pixelmator that much. Seems if a pro is going to spend that much on a tool, they'd use Photoshop.

I thought the same, but also thought that if you want to be taken seriously as a professionnal tool, you've got to start somewhere! Small steps. Maybe one day it'll be considered normal to invest on a Mac Pro to use Pixelmator. For now I agree it's a little weird though.

 

[bbeagle]

Always good news to see Pixelmator updated. But I do wonder how many Mac Pro users are actually using Pixelmator that much. Seems if a pro is going to spend that much on a tool, they'd use Photoshop.

THAT much? $29?

Pixelmator is $29. Photoshop is $999. If you're just starting out, or have a small business, $30 is a lot easier to deal with than $1000. Even my workplace, where we need professionally generated artwork, the artists cannot put $1000 on an expense report. The company won't allow it when something 'good enough' is $30.

 

[Sandstorm]

I'm Adobe CC subscriber and I use Photoshop/Illustrator daily (and probably won't switch away anytime soon), but I'm very impressed with the progress Pixelmator is making. And the price is also really great, I purchased the boxed version a long time ago and then later purchased again the Mac App Store version, just to support the guys. I wish more developers where this nimble and with such honest pricing.

 

[Mak47]

Always good news to see Pixelmator updated. But I do wonder how many Mac Pro users are actually using Pixelmator that much. Seems if a pro is going to spend that much on a tool, they'd use Photoshop.

I'm a pro and I use both. I usually get projects started in Pixelmator and eventually, if needed, export them for Photoshop. Both applications are great in different ways. Photoshop has more tools and options, but the Pixelmator workflow is massively faster because it requires far fewer clicks to get things done.

 

[mryingster]

not a pro, but have yet to find any feature i was missing from photoshop when using pixelmator. i think its a viable alternative.

I agree. The only feature that I miss from photoshop, but haven't yet found in pixelmator is the lens correction filter. Otherwise, Pixelmator feels lighter, faster, prettier and there's no danged subscription fee!

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

When you are doing adjustments you need the extra color space/precision. This is a significant reason why most photographers will shoot in RAW mode rather than using the fast in-camera JPG conversion; once you go to JPG you've lost a great deal of the photographic information so lose the chance to adjust exposure, white balance, and contrast to bring out details of the image. As you make those adjustments, even if you start with an 8-bit image, the 16 bits of precision allow you to make multiple such adjustments in series without unwanted side effects (banding, detail loss, etc).

Imagine a calculator that doesn't keep anything after the decimal point, and using that to do algebra homework. Lack of precision is a significant handicap.

Working in 16 bits (or more) is a requirement for any photo manipulation prior to the output photo stage. PSE and Pixelmator being 8-bit meant that they always had to be the very last step in any photo touch-up workflow, which meant that a lot of the fancy tools they brought to bear were useless.

Ah - I get it. Thanks. It's the same kind of reason why you work at crazy high DPIs when you'll be distributing the final work at a much lower DPI. (Although personally I wish SVGs were more common... I understand that you need a raster format for image captures, but if you're creating something from nothing, IE, like most iOS icons, why not just use SVG?)

 

[835153]

The main thing I don't like about Pixelmator is how there's no greyscale or CMYK. Their approach is that if you're going to create images for print, the color space will be prepared by exporting to PDF.

This is the main reason why I only dabble with Pixelmator at the moment as there is no way to guarantee the exact CMYK values. Once it gets CMYK and Greyscale it will open it up to professional print designers at the moment its really oily for creating web graphics and who needs a MacPro for that?!

 

[redscull]

I wonder if they fixed it to not be so god-aweful slow when creating or opening images in Mavericks. I would take that over every feature they added. Pixelmator was fast on Mountain Lion; upgraded to Mavericks (same Pixelmator version) and it became painfully slow. Anyone know or have a workaround for this problem? I'm on a 2.9Ghz i5 with 8GB (early 2013 27" iMac).

 

[xraydoc]

Pixelmator replaced PSE for me a couple years ago when it first came out and just keeps getting better.

I'm not a graphics "professional" so I don't require something as massive as the $999 Photoshop suite but I do deal with medical imaging all day long, thus a good tool is required. Pixelmator does everything I need from a work perspective. And it's more than capable for personal photo touch-ups to/from iPhoto.

While everyone is busy trying to find a pirated copy of Photoshop, I think they'd all be better off plunking down the $29 for Pixelmator. Far easier to use, better performance than PSE and uses modern MacOS X API's versus the decades-old recycled code from the MacOS 8/9 days.

 

[Renzatic]

I can't abandon Photoshop because my workflow is built around it (and I need 32 bit image editing for depth masks and such) but I love to use Pixelmator.

Unless you're doing something at a level I'm completely unaccustomed to, Pixelmator should do just fine for what you're doing, since 8-bit per channel is more than enough for greyscale depthmaps. Any more than that, and you'd be editing on a gradient so granular, they wouldn't make any noticeable difference when applied to a high res mesh.

Honestly, if they threw in adjustment layers, Pixelmator would be able to match PS almost perfectly for texture work. I'd buy a Macbook Pro just for it.

 

[randolorian]

Acorn

Any thoughts on Pixelmator versus Acorn? Trying to decide which to invest in.

 

[WaxedJacket]

This seriously is a great company.

I'd love to see them release a video editing software with the same caliber.

 

[SeattleMoose]

and Pixelmator is a snap to use.

I prefer it to Photoshop, but Pro mileage may vary.

I am very impressed at how quickly they've updated the software to utilize the Mac Pro (I know they were used in the Mac Pro demos but still this is very nice to see.) They were pretty fast with Retina optimization too.

I am one of those guys for which Pixelmator IS my main image modification tool. What I REALLY like about them is that they are hungry, fast, and responsive (take a look at their forum). And for the price...it is one of the best "bang for the buck" Apps out there.

 

[Michaelgtrusa]

Any thoughts on Pixelmator versus Acorn? Trying to decide which to invest in.

Pixelmator has a very large community behind it, just visit Youtube and you'll see. Acorn has maybe one vid? Both are good.

 

[phrehdd]

Does Pixelmator take any 3rd party plugins? I think if they could, it would add far more value and purchasers as a selling point. I admit I am coming from the 'hate Adobe forced CC program' group.

 

[morespce54]

Unless you're doing something at a level I'm completely unaccustomed to, Pixelmator should do just fine for what you're doing, since 8-bit per channel is more than enough for greyscale depthmaps. Any more than that, and you'd be editing on a gradient so granular, they wouldn't make any noticeable difference when applied to a high res mesh.

Honestly, if they threw in adjustment layers, Pixelmator would be able to match PS almost perfectly for texture work. I'd buy a Macbook Pro just for it.

To me, they should add a way to lock layers (it is sometimes annoying when you want to move an item and the above layer get selected instead) and a fix to keep the app at full-screen when switching app and back (hitting cmd-tab) then it would be nearly perfect.

But adjustment layers would be really sweet too!

 

[djtech42]

Does Pixelmator take any 3rd party plugins? I think if they could, it would add far more value and purchasers as a selling point. I admit I am coming from the 'hate Adobe forced CC program' group.

It supports Quartz Composer plugins. Not sure if anything else is supported.

 

[kazmac]

that's great

I am one of those guys for which Pixelmator IS my main image modification tool. What I REALLY like about them is that they are hungry, fast, and responsive (take a look at their forum). And for the price...it is one of the best "bang for the buck" Apps out there.

I agree with you 100%. I know they pay attention to their users, which is wonderful. It's a terrific app.

 

[chrono1081]

Unless you're doing something at a level I'm completely unaccustomed to, Pixelmator should do just fine for what you're doing, since 8-bit per channel is more than enough for greyscale depthmaps. Any more than that, and you'd be editing on a gradient so granular, they wouldn't make any noticeable difference when applied to a high res mesh.

Honestly, if they threw in adjustment layers, Pixelmator would be able to match PS almost perfectly for texture work. I'd buy a Macbook Pro just for it.

I do a lot of alpha making for ZBrush and displacement for Modo too. If you use 8 bit it gets quite "bandy"

 

[Rustus Maximus]

THAT much? $29?

Pixelmator is $29. Photoshop is $999. If you're just starting out, or have a small business, $30 is a lot easier to deal with than $1000. Even my workplace, where we need professionally generated artwork, the artists cannot put $1000 on an expense report. The company won't allow it when something 'good enough' is $30.

Not sure if you're kidding, but in case you're not...if $970 is all that stands between success or failure in your small business you've larger problems than which image manipulation software you should be springing for.

By the way, your artists wouldn't be spending $1000 every time they fire up PS. Also, no company needing "professional artwork" is going to balk at purchasing the industry standard for image manipulation...ever...not ever.

Pixelmator is a great basic low end image manipulator which, in the right talented hands, is capable of a great deal more. However it is not Photoshop...yet.

 

[bbeagle]

Not sure if you're kidding, but in case you're not...if $970 is all that stands between success or failure in your small business you've larger problems than which image manipulation software you should be springing for.

I'm not kidding.

There are different reasons for owning photo software. If you're a small business with a website, your website will not be a failure just because you didn't use some special filter that Photoshop has. Most small businesses can't even hire an decent artist anyways - it's the boss that makes the ads. Look at all the local car dealerships ads, some look like they were made in the 1980s!

If you're a small business where you're doing something like preparing print ads, with stiff competition, and you have a team of talented artists, that's different, but for most people, Photoshop is too expensive and unnecessary.

 

[Renzatic]

I do a lot of alpha making for ZBrush and displacement for Modo too. If you use 8 bit it gets quite "bandy"

Ahh, I didn't think of that. It makes sense that if you're working with a detailed heightmap over a large space, have more than 256 steps would produce better end results when blown up to higher resolutions.

...hell, now I want to try it.

 

[D.T.]

I agree with you 100%. I know they pay attention to their users, which is wonderful. It's a terrific app.

Heck, I even picked it up back in the 1.x version, got it on sale for $14.95, and they’ve allowed me to upgrade for _free_ across two major version updates (2.x and 3.x). That’s astounding in the commercial software world (looking at you Adobe, Parallels ...)

 

[chrono1081]

Ahh, I didn't think of that. It makes sense that if you're working with a detailed heightmap over a large space, have more than 256 steps would produce better end results when blown up to higher resolutions.

...hell, now I want to try it.

Do it! You will see the light…

I also really like that you can use a depth map in conjunction with Photoshops lens blur filter, it gives fantastic results without having to use DoF in the render and crank up your render times.